Cities are constantly responding to new technology and residents' evolving needs, and the curb is one place where big changes are happening. Ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft have expanded in the past few years, as have delivery trucks as more and more people get deliveries from Amazon, Instacart, and other delivery services.

Yet most of the space along our curbs has long been dedicated to parking private vehicles, reducing the space available to these new road users to pull to the curb. Instead, they can end up potentially blocking other road users as well as pedestrian traffic.

To address this, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) set up a special zone on Connecticut Avenue in 2017 dedicated to vehicles picking up and dropping off. It announced six more pick-up/drop-off zones (elegantly abbreviated “PUDOs”) in October 2018. The agency plans to add more areas in the future.

Check out this list: is there a PUDO near you?

14th St and U St NW: west curbside of the 1900 block of 14th St NW

14th St and U St NW: east curbside of the 2000 block of 14th St NW

NoMa/Union Market: west curbside of the 1200 block of 6th St NE

Smithsonian National Zoo: east curbside of the 2000 block of 14th St NW

Georgetown: east curbside of the 1200 block of Wisconsin Avenue NW

The Wharf: south curbside of the 800 block of Maine Ave SW

The curb is a valuable asset for cities

Urban design, especially in terms of land use, is one of our best tools to make journeys safer and more efficient. In recent years, the existing design of our road and curbside space hasn’t been able to keep up with changing use, resulting in slower journeys for nearly everyone and in roads that are less safe for drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and scootists alike.

Residents and workers use curbside areas several times a day: for parking cars, for loading and unloading commercial vehicles, for getting in and out of ride-hailing services or taxis, for stepping into the street to check if it’s safe to cross, for leaning a bike or scooter while paused at a stop sign or red light, and more.

The rules and pricing around these valuable public assets have a huge impact on how they’re used. Concerns that misuse of traffic lanes is compromising safety as well as traffic flow prompted DDOT to designate several curbside areas throughout the District as PUDOs.

Designating specific zones for pick-up/drop-off activities might help with other urban scourges too, like the danger and inconvenience posed by delivery trucks parked in driveways that run directly across sidewalks, which forces pedestrians into the street or around the front of large vehicles where drivers have limited visibility. Giving truck drivers somewhere appropriate to fulfill their functions could help people walking stay safe, especially those with mobility challenges and those who are walking with small children.

How are the PUDOs working out?

Other cities have deployed PUDOs to address congestion and road safety. A PUDO program in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, part of its Vision Zero initiative, has shown positive results.

A recent evaluation showed that designated PUDOs along a heavily-trafficked route had improved traffic flow and reduced delays, and ride-hailing and delivery vehicles heavily used the zones. Fort Lauderdale's wider package of reforms, focusing on balancing the needs of different road users through redesign, also significantly sped up journeys for emergency vehicles and reduced speeding along this key corridor.

A PUDO in use in Georgetown. Image by David Alpert.

So will PUDOs keep expanding around the region? Some things to watch for include whether the zones being used frequently and whether they're being used properly. Good signage and promotion by ride-hailing and delivery companies will factor into this.

PUDO zones also require taking away a few parking spaces. As illustrated in the recent heated discussions around a protected bikeway in Dupont Circle, any proposal that reduces parking, especially in residential areas, can bring out resistance from the Not In My Parking Space camp. But communities have thus far been very supportive of the very small number of space changes for these zones.

Fundamentally, PUDOs require us to rethink how our physical public assets can be structured to reflect cities' changing needs and priorities. Jurisdictions must figure out which needs and priorities must take precedence in order to allow us to build a city we all want to live and work in for decades to come.

Top image: A pick-up/drop-off zone (PUDO) in Georgetown. Image by David Alpert.

Last month, Lyft and Martha’s Table announced a six-month partnership to provide low-income residents in Wards 7 and 8 with low-cost rides to the grocery store. The pilot program, which starts this month, will include 500 families. To qualify, a family must have a child enrolled in an elementary school in either ward.

Grocery store access has been an issue in Wards 7 and 8 for quite some time. The two wards only have three grocery stores serving more than 145,000 residents (four if you include the one just over the district line in Prince George’s County). Thankfully there's another one on the way in Ward 8.

Right now if you live in Barry Farms in Ward 8, for example, you are 1.8 miles from the nearest grocery store. While Barry Farms is within 0.6 miles of the Anacostia Metro Station and the Giant Food is about 0.5 miles from the Congress Heights Metro Station, the journey is still anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes. Should it really take that long in a city as dense as DC to get to the nearest grocery store?

In 2017, residents staged a “Grocery Walk” to highlight the distances people in Wards 7 and 8 must walk to get groceries. According to the DC Policy Center, more than 40% of households in Ward 8 are carless. These residents must either make small purchases they can carry easily, or rely on more expensive convenience stores. Many other residents are elderly or disabled, meaning they may not be able to get to a grocery store at all, regardless of the mode of transit available.

Lyft’s pilot program allows eligible residents to call a car and get groceries. It’s better than promoting car ownership, but it’s also a band-aid solution because it doesn’t fix the two underlying issues: there aren’t enough grocery stores which has created food insecurity, and the city should focus on transit and not car usage as the primary mode of getting around.

If residents East of the Anacostia had more stores, they would be able to walk to get their groceries. If they had better better routes, stops, shelters, and better Metrorail service they could get to the existing stores faster and easier. Cars could then be used more sparingly by those who don’t have other options.

While the area's bus routes definitely aren’t perfect, people are using them. ANC 7D Commissioner Justin Lini pointed out that the older, low-income residents who need better transit service to get to the grocery store aren’t typically using Lyft or Uber, and there are fewer young residents (who are more likely to use Lyft or Uber) who grocery shop in Wards 7 and 8.

The solution that would be most long-lasting would be to improve the current bus service and to explore alternatives like express routes to grocery stores. These low-cost Lyft rides are a short-term benefit. They have the potential to help certain people during a certain timeframe, but also to normalize cars as being a real solution when they aren’t.

“I am incredibly wary of anything that breaks attention away from expanding transit service,” said Editorial Board member Alex Baca. “I think Lyft’s initiative will make a difference in individual lives, but we should be critical of what this means in the broader scope of how public transportation is valued and prioritized by our elected officials.”

Part of good urbanism is considering how different people have different needs. Cars do have a use sometimes. It isn’t easy to haul groceries by public transit or bike to begin with, as anyone who has had to do so can attest. For many residents, including those with disabilities or children, it is impractical or infeasible.

The issue isn’t with Lyft or with Martha’s Table. It seems both organizations are doing this with good intentions, and this absolutely will help people. But it's a stop-gap. A long term solution would find ways to build grocery stores directly in the neighborhoods that need them, and ensure the city's transit network makes driving a car unnecessary.

Earlier this year, participants in the Bus Transformation Project, a regional consensus-building exercise led by WMATA, came together to study the region's bus network. Business, transportation, and community leaders and all of the region's nine bus service providers are taking part. Their work will provide a roadmap for making improvements to bus service that will be released for public input in Fall 2019.

In October, the consulting team released a draft report on the region's bus system as it currently stands. This analysis looked at four main points: customer expectations and demands; regional coordination and current funding formulas; the role technology plays; and financial stability moving forward. It doesn't strive to make specific policy prescriptions, but rather provide context for future decisions. GGWash also ran a series on ways to improve bus service in the Washington region.

The report is full of detailed analysis and figures and is worth an in-depth read. Here are a few main takeaways:

1. Bus users tend to be racially-diverse and transit-dependent

The report found that bus users are more likely to be low-income or zero-car households. There's also a greater chance that they are a racial minority or limited English speaker. This is backed up by surveys from some jursidictions that show more than 60% of riders are non-white, and that three out of four riders do not have access to a car.

2. Three-quarters of the region's low-income households have access to good bus service

Of the total number of low-income households in the region, the report found 75% have access to high-frequency bus service during peak periods. (High-frequency is defined here as a bus every 15 minutes or less, though that's not really high-frequency service.)

DC has the highest concentration of low-income households with 25% defined as low-income, 97% of whom have access to high-frequency peak service. Prince George's County has the second largest concentration of low-income households at 15%, but only 61% of these households have similar bus access. Alexandria and Arlington score best in terms of low-income household access to high-frequency peak bus service, providing more or less universal accessibility.

3. Jobs in the region's core are accessible by transit, but not so in the suburbs

Many of the region's jobs tend to be more concentrated near high-frequency transit. In DC, 94% of jobs are within a quarter mile of high frequency bus lines, and Arlington does even better at 99% access. Less urban jursidictions, like Fairfax and Prince George's counties, have significantly worse access. Only 57% and 46%, respectively, of their jobs are accessible by high-frequency buses.

On average, a household in the region has access to 1.4 million jobs (roughly 50% of all jobs) within 45 minutes by car, compared to only 580,000 (20%) using transit. But by 2040, transit is expected to improve relative to driving because of increasing congestion, with 21% of the region's jobs accessible within 45 minutes of transit compared to 38% for driving.

4. WMATA provides a large chunk of the the region's service

The region's bus routes are divided into two broad categories: regional and non-regional. WMATA is responsible for planning and operating any regional route. Local jurisdictions are responsbile for non-regional ones, but can choose to contract the operation out to another entity, including WMATA.

Given all this, it's no surprise WMATA provides a big chunk of the region's service. The majority of service in DC, Prince George's County, and Fairfax County is provided by Metrobus. Even though Alexandria, Arlington, and Montgomery counties have their own bus services, Metrobus still provides up to half of all service in those areas.

This also means a lot of daily transfers to, from, and between Metrobus routes—about 18,000 between Metrobus and other operators and nearly 50,000 from one Metrobus to another. More than a quarter of Metrobus transfers are from a connecting system. On average, there is about a 12-minute wait when transferring between buses.

The report notes that rides through Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), also known as ride-hailing, have grown exponentially over the last five years and coincide with bus ridership losses in the Washington region.

Pricepoints for some of these services, like Uber and Lyft, have decreased in the last few years, making them more competitive with transit. Other “on-demand” modes like bikeshare have grown as well, but still represent a small fraction of total trips in the region.

Technology does offer some potential benefits to bus operators. Initiatives like Transit Signal Priority and real-time apps can make transit more efficient and provide a better customer experience. New electric and alternative fuel systems could reduce operating costs and increase efficiency, as could autonomous technology, though this presents challenges, too.

A regional network needs a regional solution

Of course, a regional network of bus operators means dealing with dozens of government agencies and other entities. The report briefly touches on all this, summarizing the WMATA Compact, state and local officials, and funding mechanisms for the region's bus services.

The report points out that subjective categorization of regional and non-regional routes, along with complex funding structures, “undermines WMATA's ability to be effective in its Compact-defined role of regional bus planner.” These issues will need to be addressed before making largescale service changes.

Transportation platforms that limit users' options could push out public transit. Ride-hailing companies like to keep their numbers secret, but now we know how many rides they provide in Seattle. The pricing systems cities have developed to charge electric scooter companies for using streets might one day be applied to cars.

There's danger in creating “walled gardens” in transportation: A “walled garden” is a technology platform that limits the options available to a user to ones curated by the company (think Amazon's Kindle or Apple's App Store). David Zipper argues there is a real danger of limiting transportation choice when ride hailing companies, for example, create walled gardens that could push out other options such as public transit. (David Zipper | Fast Company)

Ride-hailing totals in Seattle revealed: Ride-hailing companies are notorious for hiding their numbers, but new information from Seattle provides some insight. Two of the largest companies, Uber and Lyft, provide on average 91,000 rides per day in King County, up from 25,000 trips in 2015. Other transportation systems in the region, such as light rail, carry 77,000 trips per day. The interesting part is that more than half of these rides originate in the zip codes that make up downtown. (David Gutman | Seattle Times)

Charging scooters to use streets could be a template for charging cars: Many cities that have seen an influx of electric scooters have developed systems to charge them to use public streets and sidewalks. Current schemes can be modeled after what cities charge restaurants for sidewalk seating. But in the future, this initial pricing test could lead to charging private cars and perhaps autonomous vehicles for using roads. (Aarian Marshall | Wired)

Making defensive architecture more inviting: Bollards are often put in front of buildings to defend against vehicle-based terrorist attacks, but they can be ugly and uninviting for urban streetscapes premised on being open. Architect Beatriz Pero Giannini thinks he has a solution. He's created various types of furniture (including the rocker, the slider, and the wobbler) for the top of bollards that invite people to sit together and create positive interactions. (Katharine Schwab | Fast Company)

Amazon's search for a second headquarters split: After months of speculation, a new report from the Wall Street Journal found that Amazon will be choosing more than one place for the location of their second headquarters. Current projections are for Crystal City in the Washington region and Long Island City in New York. This revalation has prompted think pieces and commentary from Brookings, Rolling Stone, and an interesting one from the New York Times about “Superstar Cities.” (Gaby Del Valle | Vox)

Quote of the Week

“I feel a lot of the discussions around transit take as its major metric of success the opening of new rail lines. I think the definition of ‘success’ is you made a network that makes it easy to get around the city.”

Christof Spieler in Wired talking about his new book Trains, Buses, People and the definition of successful transit.

This week on the podcast, Dr. Kari Watkins of Georgia Tech discusses the evolving transit experience and importance of dedicated lanes and real time data.

The DC government has twice extended an initial pilot program for dockless bikes and scooters without changing any of its initial rules, including a limit of 400 vehicles per company which we've argued was too restrictive. Now, for 2019, there's a new version of program with some more flexibility, but also many new rules.

On the cap, DC will now allow 600 bikes or scooters per company, up from 400. For companies that offer both, they will be able to treat bikes and scooters totally separately, with up to 600 for each. Further, if things are going smoothly, the District Department of Transportation will be able to grant an increase of 25% every three months.

Bikes will have to include locks which let them be connected to a rack or sign, like the current JUMP bikes do. JUMP is the only service offering dockless bikes in DC right now. Scooters won't need locks, but will have to contain technology limiting them to 10 mph, while e-bikes must be limited to 20 mph (possibly more downhill, obviously, but the motor won't drive it faster).

Companies will pay fees that amount to about $5 per month for each bike or scooter, plus annual fees that amount to about $500. They will also have to post a $10,000 bond against problems or companies abandoning the market and not cleaning up their vehicles.

Services have to offer ways for people to rent vehicles without a smartphone, and pay cash. They have to provide lower prices to low-income residents including “unlimited trips under 30 minutes to any customer with an income level at or below 200% of the federal poverty guidelines,” and put vehicles in all eight wards by 6:00 each morning.

There has to be a public web service so smartphone apps and web tools and researchers can access information on bike and scooter locations, so, for instance, apps like Transit can show you where to get dockless vehicles. DDOT will get more detailed data including the start and end time and location of every trip, how long bikes or scooters are in service, and more.

Our contributors generally feel dockless bikes and scooters represent a huge opportunity to help more people get around without driving, in a way that takes up less street space and pollutes the air less. As one contributor put it, “If dockless mobility is something we want, why are we taxing and regulating it as if it's a nuisance?”

Contributors were most frustrated by the continued low limits. “We wanted 20,000 right? This is like 15% of that? I don't think the other regs matter that much. This is setting this up to fail,” said Nick Sementelli.

David Cranor said, “Not so long ago we had 2,000 dockless bikes. Why can't we start there at least?”

The split 600-and-600 will let companies that currently offer just one vehicle branch out into the other. Some companies only want to offer scooters right now because they make more money than non-electric bikes.

All non-electric dockless bike companies have left the DC market. Some, like Mobike and ofo, loudly proclaimed that they were leaving because of the 400-vehicle cap, though those companies, both based in China, also pulled out of North America entirely and weren't very good at cooperating with rules. However, Tracy Loh pointed out, there are still companies offering bikes in other cities.

While JUMP offers the lock-to requirement, other companies do not currently. One contributor, who couldn't speak on the record because they are not allowed to be quoted on this topic due to their job, said that at least one company would bring e-bikes into DC but can't meet the lock-to rule. Also, they added, there are still not enough bike racks in most areas of the city.

Other contributors argued that lock-to makes sense as a way to stop problematic parking jobs that generate complaints from residents. Certainly it's true that since non-locking bikes left the DC market, dockless bike parking has just not been a problem the way it was last fall.

DC is holding bikes and scooters to a higher standard than cars

Some contributors critcized the overall policy framework which puts so many rules on bikes.

Gordon Chaffin wrote, “There is no cap on cars that come in, come out, or stay in DC permanently with residents. Unless we apply some similar logic to cars, there will be tryanny of the automobile in DC.”

Dan Malouff added, “while I can see the logic behind wanting to regulate companies like this, unless we regulate Uber and Lyft with similar provisions, we are absolutely exacerbating systemic biases towards car use.”

Uber and Lyft now in fact operate dockless vehicles (Uber owns JUMP, and Lyft just launched scooters in DC) as well as their traditional car ride-hailing services, so DC's regulations are putting more of an onus on their sustainable bike-and-scooter services than the car ones.

DDOT would probably like to regulate the cars more as well, but can't because those rules are written into legislation. Similarly, there are rules I know officials would like to set up about private cars, except that's a much harder task.

But this is the point contributors are making. Government officials can regulate this new technology heavily because it's new and doesn't have the kind of base that driving does. But this new technology is also something we should want to encoruage to grow quickly, to let people get around without driving if they choose. We know people are choosing this, but often can't because vehicles are not available. The bigger public policy picture is still getting lost here.

the obvious counterfactual would if uber and lyft were capped at 15 mph and 600 cars

He added, “Now we're going to 'learn' the lesson when it comes to dockless and more aggressively regulate. But why?”

And more

Lime has been offering a cash payment option in Seattle, and Spin and JUMP have similar programs. The new cash payment rules seem modeled on that.

A rebalancing rule is something I've suggested for some time. But, letting companies put enough vehicles on the street to meet demand will make it a lot easier to have some of them in underserved areas. And, companies can make enough money to pay for rebalancers, cash payment programs, and more.

Equity regulations make the most sense in the context of a larger program, like Seattle's which allows 5,000 vehicles per company.

I haven't gotten through all of the data sharing requirements, but requiring public APIs is an important practice which I've been pushing for since the beginning. The Transit app folks just published an article about the importance of open data in dockless services, and called out DC as a leader in this regard.

What do you think? DDOT is accepting comments until November 26. You can use the form below to submit your thoughts. If you want to remind officials that there are many of us who want 20,000 shared bikes and scooters in DC, send them a link to our petition: www.20kbikesdc.org.

A school in Beverly Hills has gotten into hot water for using students to protest a subway project. All those bankrupt Sears buildings leave a lot of empty space in malls across the US. While most of the town of Mexico Beach was wiped away, this one house was left standing mostly unscathed.

Beverly Hills also has Purple Line problems: The Beverly Hills Unified School District has pulled out all the stops to try to block the construction of a new subway under a local high school. They've been trying for years with no luck, so they decided to bus children to a rally to ask the Trump Administration to block funding for the new Purple Line. The LA Times editorial board wasn't having any of it, and asked everyone involved to cut it out with the hysteria. I'm not sure I've ever seen a paper stand up so strongly to antics. (Jenna Chandler | Curbed LA)

Bankrupt Sears leaves a lot of empty space: Department store giant Sears filed for bankruptcy and will be closing its remaining 142 stores. As recently as 2005 following a merger between Sears and KMart there were 3,800 stores, but the retail giant has dwindled ever since. The announcement opens up challenges and opportunities for many economic development directors and mall operators who will have to figure out what to do with so much empty space in malls that are already struggling. (Liz Wolf | National Real Estate Investor)

The beach house that stayed up: Hurricane Michael barreled through the Florida panhandle last week with winds over 150 mph. Most of the town of Mexico Beach was completely wiped away, but one house was still standing — with only slight damage. The house was designed specifically to withstand “the big one,” though building codes put in place in 2007 only require 120-150 mph ratings, much less than 175 mph ratings in the southern part of the state. (Patricia Mazzei | New York Times)

Every building in America: Last week the New York Times sent out print versions of maps with every building in America, and they also have an online portal for looking at them. What is interesting is that they published this data and didn't do much analysis, but instead just asked readers to look. Personally, I hope in the future that just sharing data isn't journalism, but I'm curious what folks here think about this data drop. (Wallace, Watkins, Schwartz | New York Times)

New traffic in San Francisco: A new report from the SFCTA shows that 50% of the rise in traffic from 2010 to now is from ride hailing companies, though the report also notes that large population and employment increases also contributed to congestion. In some places such as downtown, ride hailing companies were responsible for 73% of increased delay. (Megan Rose Dickey | Tech Crunch)

Quote of the Week

“The idea was to pitch [Pittsburgh's stairs] as small vertical parks that could help address some of the city's equitable connectivity, open space, and green infrastructure challenges. Chase and Merritt started sketching and developed a concept of reconfiguring the basic physical building blocks of the stairs-precast concrete and metal piping-into a range of community-centric enhancements such as picnic tables, fitness courses, bird blinds, and performance stages.”

Ride-hailing services have integrated themselves into our cities so completely that in just a few years, “Uber” has become a verb and spotting license plates from afar has become a valuable skill. Uber and Lyft have gotten flack for not providing riders the same level of service if they have service animals or mobility devices — if they are served at all.

Ride-hailing companies say that they’re exempt from many of the same accessibility requirements as public transit because they’re tech, not transportation, companies. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not consider them to be public transit or taxi companies because it doesn't include a definition of transportation that would apply to ride-hailing.

Nonetheless, many disabled passengers and advocates believe ride-hailing services have a responsibility to offer the same level of service to them as they do to other riders. Uber and Lyft are responding to criticisms with initiatives aimed at improving accessibility.

Uber and Lyft aren’t as useful for riders who use mobility devices

Recently disability advocates sounded the alarm on Uber and Lyft, saying the services are “useless” for riders who use mobility devices and pointing out that there aren’t enough vehicles that can accommodate wheelchairs and electric scooters. This impacts a lot of people: about 31 million Americans have mobility-related disabilities.

Advocates say that the companies discriminate against people with disabilities in various ways. Sometimes drivers refuse to pick them up, and often they don’t provide service at all. A recent report revealed that only 26% of attempts to hail wheelchair-accessible vehicles in New York were successful, while the success rate for finding non-accessible vehicles was 100%, according to the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. The longer wait time for the few vehicles that can accommodate mobility devices can negate any benefit of using the service.

So why aren’t Uber and Lyft and other ride-hailing companies providing good service to disabled riders? The big issue is the cost. Vans and SUVs may need ramps and lifts, which can cost $10,000 or more. Vans and SUVs, which are easier for some disabled people to use, can be more expensive than sedans and have less efficient gas mileage.

The ADA requires taxi companies to provide accessible vehicles, but any time you step onto the street, you’ll notice most taxis are sedans. That's because the ADA did not specify how much of a taxi company’s fleet had to be accessible, nor require taxi companies to provide accessible vehicles for a specific customer as long as they could prove that riders could also use sedan-type taxis, even if they prefer vans or use them more easily. The ADA does require new vans to be accessible, but some taxi companies buy used vans to get around this requirement.

Disability advocates say shirking ADA requirements is not only wrong, it’s poor business. At the heart of their advocacy is the desire to see riders with disabilities treated fairly and equally. Ride-hailing companies, for their part, say they're trying to get better and are launching a variety of initiatives to better serve all passengers.

“We will continue to work with our partners in the DC area and beyond to expand transportation options for all residents. We have a clear non-discrimination policy that includes serving riders with disabilities, and driver-partners who use the Uber app agree to accommodate riders with service animals and comply with all accessibility laws,” says Kasra Moshkani, Uber’s Southeast Manager, through Uber’s Public Affairs office.

For example, Lyft has gotten into hot water over directing wheelchair users to taxi services. A lawsuit in California alleged that Lyft provided a “Lyft Access” option on its app for passengers with disabilities to schedule a pickup with a wheelchair accessible vehicle, but that the feature was a false advertisement. Passengers received a text message saying the vehicle being sent to their location would only be able to accommodate passengers who could get out of their wheelchairs.

“[With Uber] if you requested a wheelchair accessible car, it sent you to the local taxi service. Wheelchair users waited longer,” says Case.

Another issue is that some passengers who have service animals have been denied service. In 2017, Uber settled a lawsuit brought on by the National Federation of the Blind, which alleged that Uber violated the ADA when it allowed drivers to refuse service to disabled passengers and their service animals.

As part of the settlement, Uber implemented a training and awareness program that asked drivers to acknowledge their obligations to comply with the ADA and to not discriminate against disabled passengers. It also instituted a way for passengers to lodge complaints specifically related to being denied service due to their disability or to having a service dog.

“[Uber and Lyft] keep saying they’re not a transportation company, they’re a technology company. They tried to say that for service animals, and were overturned,” Case says. “This is about equity. Disabled people have places to go and things to do, and they don’t have the time to sit in a car with their service dog while a driver refuses to drive.”

Campbell Matthews, a Lyft spokesperson, says, “Lyft is committed to maintaining an inclusive and welcoming community for all. Refusing disabled passengers or service animals is a violation of our terms of service, and all complaints are thoroughly investigated from both the passenger and driver sides. Discrimination of any kind may result in the offender's immediate deactivation.”

Uber launched its UberWAV (Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle) service in DC in 2015, but these cars are uncommon. It costs more for drivers to participate in the UberWAV program because it relies on drivers to purchase or already be driving wheelchair accessible vehicles. Uber contracts with taxi companies that have accessible vehicles to drive under the UberWAV banner, and taxi companies can only operate if they have valid taxi medallions. Those can still be pricey, even though ride-hailing companies are cutting into the taxi industry and driving prices down.

Several of these lawsuits have been settled, and Uber and Lyft now require drivers to give passengers with service dogs with the same service they provide to those without. A lawsuit filed in California in February 2018 against Uber over its UberWAV service is still pending.

UberHealth and Lyft's ABLE account could help

In March, Uber announced UberHealth, a service aimed at getting people to and from their doctors’ appointments with just a click. Unlike the traditional Uber service, this is specifically for medical offices to order rides for their patients. It can eliminate some of the technological barrier for people who can’t or aren’t comfortable using apps or websites.

At first glance, it seems like UberHealth could supplement UberWAV by providing accessible vehicles. Federal Medicaid law requires states to provide non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT), which is especially relevant in our region since Virginia recently expanding Medicaid and needs more such vehicles to serve new patients.

Nationwide, about 3.6 million people miss appointments because of unreliable transportation. While ride-hailing companies may be able to supplement NEMT, a study from 2016 published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that several socioeconomic barriers remain.

For example, ride-hailing companies tend to operate in urban areas because it’s difficult to sustain enough business in rural ones. Booking an Uber or Lyft typically requires a smartphone, which presents a technological or financial barrier for some potential passengers. Uber’s business model incentivizes drivers to make trips quickly to turn a profit, but sick passengers may prefer a slower ride.

However, there isn’t much information on whether all UberHealth vehicles are accessible. There are also questions about whether UberHealth is responsible for passengers with medical conditions.

For its part, Lyft has launched various partnerships to help passengers with disabilities get around. In May, the company announced it had partnered with National Down Syndrome Society to subsidize transit for disabled passengers with an ABLE account, a benefits program and savings account for those who need assistance because of poverty or disability. Passengers with ABLE accounts can use them to pay for Lyft rides just as they would with a credit or debit card.

Campbell Matthews, a Lyft spokesperson, affirmed the company’s commitment to providing services, saying, “Lyft is committed to ensuring that those who need rides most are able to get them. We think about accessibility broadly and the value that rideshare brings to communities who may have previously been underserved by other forms of transit.”

Lyft has also partnered with the National Federation for the Blind and recently started providing its Lyft Amp technology to drivers in the DC region. The Lyft Amp is an LED display that mounts on the dashboard of a driver’s vehicle. When the Lyft driver approaches their passenger, the Amp will light up with a color that also appears on the passenger’s app to make it easier to find the right vehicle.

The Lyft Amp “helps us to build on our commitment to the deaf and hard of hearing community by providing greater independence and mobility for those who drive with Lyft,” says Matthews.

What else can be done?

In 2017 a European Union court ruled against Uber, essentially saying that a technology company that operates like a private transit company is actually a transit company, and should be regulated like taxi services. Taxi companies in the European Union are required by law to provide equal service to passengers with disabilities, though drivers don’t always comply. The taxi services must provide wheelchair accessible vehicles, and cannot refuse calls for service.

The EU and the United States have the ability to enforce the law against taxi companies, but at the moment, the ADA only sets requirements for public transit and taxi companies, not ride-hailing. Until there is similar regulation for Uber and Lyft in the United States, they can continue settling lawsuits without an overarching law ensuring they offer service to the full extent that disability advocates would consider equitable.

Case points out that Uber and Lyft aren’t incentivized to help disabled passengers, because: “Offering a new driver, a voucher, and a pledge to do better is cheaper than complying with the ADA.”

Eventually, technological advancements might help make the point moot. In 2016, Wired wrote that the ADA requires taxis that are new vans to be wheelchair-accessible, and the definition of “van” is nebulous. Since Uber is testing self-driving vehicles that are mostly new SUVs and SUVs are close to being vans, this puts the company on even more tenuous legal ground. It might post just enough of a risk for a lawsuit for Uber to make its autonomous fleet accessible now, rather than retrofitting it later.

For now, though, ride-hailing companies want a seat at the transportation planning table, use city streets and parking lots, and take a share of public transit without the responsibility of complying with the ADA. Lyft and Uber clearly have a place in cities, but they aren’t providing the level of accessible service that public transit does (and neither do taxis and private cars).

All transportation providers, whether they are public transit or private companies, should strive for better accessibility for passengers with disabilities. How they go about that can be a complex equation. The high costs can make it difficult to sustain such a service, even when there are people waiting to use it.

Nonetheless, the logistical challenges of improving accessibility does not change the fact that many riders with disabilities and advocates like Heidi Case feel left out in the cold. Ride-hailing is useful for many people, and that’s why advocates say these services should be equally accessible for all types of passengers.

Ride-hailing services like Uber, Lyft, and Via have grown meteorically since launching just a few years ago. Meanwhile, transit ridership nationwide is declining, and some studies posit a direct connection. As a result, many transit supporters have sharply criticized these services.

Some fears are warranted, but ride-hailing is also offering people a valuable transportation service. Regardless, this mode is not going to disappear. Urbanists need to think about policies that can shape ride-hailing into a positive for cities. The companies involved (some of them, anyway) are in fact willing to be partners in such an effort.

DC can take two small steps in this direction when it approves its final budget on Tuesday, June 26. It should require ride-hailing companies to share information about their trips, and create an incentive in the tax code to share trips.

Ride-hailing is providing a service people value

Chances are you've taken a ride-hailing trip, and if you have, that means it was more convenient or more cost-effective or just more available than other options, even transit. That means ride-hailing added value for you. I've taken it to destinations where transit was not a viable option, or late at night or on the weekend when transit unfortunately just isn't very dependable right now.

Those of us who are urbanists appreciate the liveliness of cities and downtowns: stores and parks within a short walk; diverse and interesting people and buildings; convenient transportation to get around without having to own a car, drive, or park. Transit has long been an indispensable part of that vision.

It likely always will be, in some form. But as technology evolves, it's less clear if that form will be the same as it is today. Maybe some of it will be public and some will be privately run. In developing nations, private “jitneys” have always been a part of the “transit” landscape. The same has long been true for lower-income neighborhoods in US cities poorly served by transit. Jitneys cannot replace everything that trains and buses do, but they may well have a stronger place in our transportation system than they do now.

Whether people get around by public or private transit-like vehicles, both enable people to live in more urban places, more conveniently, without having to own a car. Both facilitate spending less of a city's space on parking lots or massive amounts of dollars on parking garages. If ride-hailing makes more walkable urban places possible, including ones in suburbs where transit infrastructure has historically been spottier, that's a win.

Ride-hailing is probably also adding to traffic and cutting into transit

Nationwide, one study estimated ride-hailing services now make up nearly as many trips as all public buses, including 250,000 trips per day in San Francisco, or 20% of all vehicle miles traveled. In DC, exact figures on the number of ride-hailing trips are not available, but a back-of-the-envelope estimate from the Council of Governments puts the number at about 123,000 trips a day or 6% of motor vehicle trips inside the District.

Studies in Boston and New York found evidence that the growth of ride-hailing is adding to congestion. Some of that might be “good” congestion — the Boston survey found that 5% of ride-hailing users wouldn't have taken the trip at all. While maybe some people are taking unnecessary trips, some may be going to a restaurant (and generating economic activity and tax money) who wouldn't have otherwise. 41% of ride-hailing users would have taken a personal car or taxi, so in those cases the ride-hail wasn't putting another car on the road.

But, the Boston survey also found that 12% would have walked or biked and 42% would have taken transit. An MBTA survey found that 30% of riders said they'd reduced their T usage because of ride-hailing. (It's worth noting that another study, by Bruce Schaller, estimated that 15-33% of ride-hailing riders would have taken transit, so the Boston number could be high. Regardless, it's significant.)

Urbanists worry that falling transit ridership can put transit into a “death spiral” where lower fare collections mean service cuts, which mean transit is even less appealing. This happened when the private car became popular, and while ride-hailing is more compatible with urbanist land use, it's still a concern that too much of a good thing can become a bad thing.

There is also the question of how many cars city streets can fit, particularly at peak times. Metro and the major bus lines through downtown Washington bring far more people into the city than cars could alone, even accounting for carpools.

Congestion and transit aren't the only concerns about ride-hailing. Right now, the services usually don't serve people who use mobility devices such as wheelchairs or who have service animals. They rely on workers who aren't full-time employees and thus don't qualify for benefits and workplace protections, and they aren't as accountable on equity.

These are important issues that can't be ignored, and public policy should tackle them. But the services aren't going away.

Who's most of the traffic? Private cars

In the DC budget, Mayor Muriel Bowser proposed raising an existing 1% tax on ride-hailing to 3.75%, and Chairman Phil Mendelson raised it further to 6% in the version of the budget bill which passed the first of two required votes May 15.

I don't have a problem with ride-hailing being taxed to address some of its externalities, but let's also not forget that driving a private vehicle is not taxed one cent. Gas taxes recoup some but not all of the cost of roads (and ride-hailing pays gas taxes too), and there's a tax on off-street parking garages, but only when the driver pays for the garage (as compared to free employer-provded parking, say).

If ride-hailing is 20% of VMT in San Francisco and 6% in DC, that means that private cars make up nearly 80-92% of VMT in these cities. That's why we have traffic. If half the people riding in private cars now switched to ride-hailing services and shared them, we could slash traffic and pollution. How can we make that happen?

The important word, though, is “shared.” Un-shared ride-hail vehicles may not take up parking spaces, but they do drive around with no passengers some of the time. One ride-hail trip often really is two trips, an empty trip to pick you up and then your actual trip.

If ride-hailing trips start being carpooling trips at substantial rates, though, it mitigates this. The more sharing, the more it's mitigated. Shared ride-hailing can be considerably more efficient and greener than private driving (though less so than transit).

That's why I worked with ride-hailing companies to propose an alternative tax structure before the May 15 vote, a setup which was approved by the council's finance committee. The proposal would tax shared rides at a lower rate than un-shared.

The real best policy solution is to charge all vehicles in some fair way for the road space they take up, such as tolls or congestion pricing. On this, ride-hailing companies have been and continue to be some of the strongest allies, advocating directly for the proposed New York congestion pricing system (which ultimately did not pass). Transit riders aren't the biggest market these companies are trying to woo to ride-hailing; private drivers are.

A number of urbanists have penned articles castigating ride-hailing generally as harmful, like Andy Furillo in Mobility Lab or Paris Marx in Medium. Furillo argues that DC should tax all ride-hailing trips higher because they are all worse than a transit trip. While it's fair to tax all trips to some extent, shared trips in particular are also better than a private car trip. If tax policy merely tries to punish people for taking shared cars in hopes they'll take transit, that leaves little solace when transit isn't offering a practical alternative right now.

Just you wait for autonomous vehicles

If the effect of ride-hailing on traffic is worrying some people, just wait for autonomous vehicles. In essence, ride-hailing trips will become nearly free. It's reasonable to expect that far, far more people will take a ride-hailing trip when it's essentially free.

I honestly don't see a lot of people willing to wait for the traditional bus any more, except where we take steps to give buses a faster ride than private cars. If people own private autonomous vehicles, then taking your private car will be as fast as a bus with no waiting (like today), but on top of that, you won't have to have the stress of driving and won't have to park it (just send it home or drive around!)

In other words, autonomous vehicles will have all the benefits of driving without the costs. If people don't own private autonomous vehicles, then just call a ride-hailing vehicle and don't worry about waiting 10-30 minutes at the bus stop.

Experts think so too. One study by Fehr & Peers estimated that widespread private autonomous vehicle use will mean a 47% rise in vehicle miles traveled and at 26% drop in transit rides (wow). If the vehicles are shared, VMT would increase by 27% and transit drop by 20%.

So, what's the role of transit? People will still take a higher-capacity vehicle, like a bus or train, if there's a significant incentive in time or cost to do so. We could create dedicated lanes for high-capacity vehicles, which could be just buses but maybe could be a combination of public buses and private bus-like services. We could also charge by the road space used for travel into congested areas, so it's in someone's interest to either use a publicly-run or privately-run shared van.

Transit agencies, too, need to adapt, like running some more dynamic services, especially in low-density areas, which pick up a number of people and drive them to a business district or rapid transit station instead of a current lengthy, winding bus route that has to get to every block.

In the automated future, what's really bad for cities is people driving private autonomous cars around, even sending them to circle empty while they run errands. Ride-hailing could be a major component of a better automated future where congestion decreases instead of increases.

Automakers are likely to want to convince every American to buy an autonomous vehicle. Ride-hailing companies can be allies of urbanists in this scenario, because they'll also want a world where car ownership isn't the rule and instead, you walk out your door and take someone else's vehicle where you need to go.

{code_1}

What DC should do now

The final vote on the DC budget is scheduled for Tuesday, June 26.

The council should restore some or all of the split tax rate which encourages sharing over private rides. The companies have been lobbying hard for this, and while that surely means they'd pay less tax, it also means they seriously expect to push a lot of riders toward shared rides. That's something we should reward.

Also, the council should finalize a requirement that the ride-hailing companies share data on the trips they are taking. For all the above reasons, cities need to understand how many people are riding on these services, where they are going, and when. I've been asking councilmembers to require this since 2014, and this year, they agreed.

Since the May 15 vote, I've been working with ride-hailing companies (who didn't want data sharing at all at first) to tweak the language to meet DC's needs (and WMATA's and COG's) for studies and analyses, while also protecting rider privacy and companies' confidential business logic. The council should adopt this version which we've agreed upon.

In the long run, we should all talk about how to fairly price the roadway for all users, so that all pay for transportation instead of exempting one majority group of users. And we should start planning for an autonomous vehicle future, so that vehicles are shared and electric, and so transit can move faster when it needs to. We should ensure that drivers at ride-hailing companies are treated fairly, and think about the future when those jobs disappear.

Cities have required taxis to give logs of their rides to regulators for a long time. New York, Toronto, Chicago, Seattle, and others ask for taxi-like data from ride-hailing companies such as Uber, Lyft, and Via; now, DC might join them. However, it won't follow through on an earlier proposal to encourage carpooling on these ride-hailing services.

The draft DC budget, released around 9 pm Monday night by Chairman Phil Mendelson, includes legislative language requiring these companies to provide:

A log of trips performed by private vehicle-for-hire operators utilizing the digital dispatch services of the private vehicle-for-hire company in the District, including, for each trip, the point of origin and destination, the date and time of pick-up and drop-off, the stationary time at pick-up and drop-off, the fare paid, whether the trip was on a private or shared service, and the number of passengers in the vehicle.

To protect privacy and keep companies' confidential business information from being shared with a competitor, the legislation provides this data is not subject to FOIA and there has to be some kind of confidentiality agreement to share the data with other entities like WMATA. I worked with committee staffers to make recommendations for this data after they expressed interest in adding the requirement.

When DC legalized ride-hailing in 2014, I advocated for a data requirement, but at the time the council was unwilling to require it and in fact the legislation prohibited regulators from requiring information. This change repeals that ban.

I think this is a good move by Mendelson and support the council passing this provision. Cities should welcome ride-hailing but also need to understand the impact they are having on mobility, on traffic, on equity, and on transit ridership. There's plenty of precedent for transportation data being shared with the public sector which maintains the space through which transportation services operate. Since airline deregulation (and before), airlines share information with the FAA about how full, on-time, etc. their planes are. Ride-hailing data is analogous.

The council will pass the budget and take the first of two required votes on the Budget Support Act, a package of laws that accompany the budget including this one.

Mendelson backs off on encouraging carpooling

Unfortunately, another provision abandons the change I'd worked with ride-hailing companies to develop which would have set up a lower tax rate for “pooled” trips and a higher one for private rides. That would have steered the growth of this industry toward more efficient carpools which do less to add to traffic and greenhouse gas emissions.

Mendelson wanted to reduce proposed increases in the hotel and restaurant taxes, so instead he raised the tax on ride-hailing to 6% across the board. He also is raising the tax on large commercial buildings beyond what Mayor Muriel Bowser proposed.

I'd have preferred he leave the ride-hail tax as approved by the Finance and Revenue committee. Reacting to this news shared on Twitter, some residents pointed out that the change puts more of the burden on residents who choose to go car-free even if transit isn’t a good option for every trip at all times of the day and week:

Why am I penalized with an additional tax because I live car free and sometimes use a car!!

The perverse rideshare tax cooked up by @MayorBowser and embiggened in the proposed Council budget makes the tax alone on some rideshare trips higher than the marginal cost of taking your own car. This could be a contender for the 2018 AAA prize for subtle pro-car tax policy.

It's disappointing to miss this opportunity to make good public policy for the roadway network at the same time the council raises money for Metro.

And more

Another provision Mendelson added, which DC Sustainable Transportation (a business and advocacy coalition which I lead) asked for, was $80,000 to help enforce the Connecticut Avenue pick-up and drop-off zone. There, what was formerly nighttime parking is now a dedicated area for ride-hailing and other vehicles to pick up and drop off people going to nearby nightclubs. Some people are parking in the zone anyway and accepting the tickets; this funding will help provide tow trucks for it and possibly some future pick-up/drop-off zones elsewhere.

There is also funding for a study of the impact of autonomous vehicles on the District.

Other budget provisions I wasn't involved with include expanding the Kids Ride Free program to Metrobus and Circulator. The budget also removes a special fund for performance parking revenue; Donald Shoup's original performance parking concept was that a city would raise meter rates but devote the extra revenue to improving the streetscape or non-driving options for the immediately affected area. DC does make improvements in the areas but never followed through on doing that in an explicitly linked way, and previous budgets took the money away from this fund which has now been empty for some time.

The council passed the budget and Budget Support Act Tuesday. The second and final Budget Support Act vote will happen on May 29.

Update: This post has been updated with additional information about the performance parking fund and the fact that the budget and BSA first reading passed Tuesday.

Ride-hailing services like Uber, Lyft, and Via are growing rapidly. They are actually two kinds of service: private cars and shared, with shared cars much better for traffic, sustainability, and roadway efficiency. Now, the DC Council has taken a positive step to encourage sharing, relative to riding alone, in the tax code.

DC will be contributing $178 million a year toward Metro's maintenance and repair needs, as part of a $500 million annual regional funding deal. As one part of paying for this bill, the Bowser administration proposed raising the existing 1% tax on ride-hailing services to 4.75%, which would raise about $18 million a year.

Could this tax achieve its fundraising goal and also advance better public policy at the same time? That's a question I posed to regional and national transportation experts, local leaders, and the companies themselves. The consensus: we should encourage more ride-hailing trips to use the “pooled” services, like UberPool or Lyft Line. Via, a third ride-hailing company that operates in DC, uses “pooling” as its primary product offering.

And rather than the usual response to a new tax, where companies try to lobby against it, they joined in a coalition with policy advocacy groups and experts to shape the tax into a different form, which is better for transportation, but which yields the same revenue.

Why pooling is better

Ride-hailing services are an increasingly large part of our transportation mix. They're giving people new and useful transportation choices. According to a summary of research by Bruce Schaller, 8-22% of ride-hailing users wouldn't have made their trip at all without ride-hailing — that means people are able to go places that were too inconvenient before.

They are also contributing to congestion. Schaller found there were twice as many for-hire vehicles (taxis and ride-hailing) in Manhattan's central business district in the evening peak in 2017 than there were in 2013. While private cars still create most of the congestion, new ride-hailing has added to it.

Growth in taxi/TNC vehicles in Manhattan CBD, average weekday, June 2017. Data from Schaller Consulting, “Empty Seats, Full Streets.” Image by Bruce Schaller.

There are a few ways address this congestion. One is congestion pricing, which charges ALL vehicles for using up road space. That's fairest and most efficient, but also politically challenging. A New York panel recommended a congestion charge in Manhattan below 60th Street, but it ran into political obstacles.

Instead, New York is raising money for its subway system by charging a higher tax on ride-hailing. In a first among US cities, it's charging a much higher tax rate for the private rides than pooled ones. It's the same idea as encouraging carpooling among private drivers: two people in a car means half as many cars or twice as much mobility; three people in a car means three times, and so on.

The ride-hailing industry and sustainable transportation organizations agree on this. Uber, Lyft, and Via, along with many local and national policy advocacy organizations like Transportation for America, ITDP, NRDC, and New York's Transportation Alternatives sent a letter to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in January supporting congestion pricing and policies which favor pooled ride-hailing over single-passenger.

It says,

We believe that any serious congestion plan or tax structure should encourage the use of multi-passenger options and discourage the use of vehicles being driven alone or transporting only one passenger. This basic principle is one we believe every city and state should begin to incorporate in its planning. Some companies provide both single passenger options and multi-passenger pooling options. Congestion policy and taxes should clearly incentivize multi-passenger pooling options.

New York City’s streets are a scarce resource. Increasing throughput by increasing vehicle occupancy is a way to satisfy more users’ needs within the same limited road space. Technology is now making the sharing of vehicles increasingly simple, convenient, and cost effective.

There is a long-term bonus the State and City will earn by establishing the sharing of vehicles and congestion pricing as practiced parts of our transportation mix. The eventual widespread adoption of self-driving cars will be well served by these policies and behaviors. Transportation and urban policy experts, including those signing this letter, have pointed out that by using autonomous vehicles on a shared basis we will most effectively reduce congestion, free up parking and lane space for better uses, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and improve livability in our communities. A plan that recognizes the importance of congestion pricing and sharing of vehicles, in combination with robust, effective mass transit, will help prepare New York City for a better future.

The DC Council supports a similar policy

Building on this work, a coalition in DC advocated for a similar policy around the ride-hailing tax. Our testimony, which I wrote as executive director of DC Sustainable Transportation, had support from DCST members like business improvement districts and advocacy groups, as well as Uber, Lyft, and Via, and experts like former DDOT director Gabe Klein and Susan Shaheen of Innovative Mobility Research at UC Berkeley.

The coalition endorsed keeping the tax on pooled ride-hailing at the existing 1% and raising only the tax on non-pooled. Instead of 4.75%, the rate would need to be higher to meet the $18 million revenue goal; the CFO's office, after getting confidential information from the three companies, determined that should be 5.4%.

Jack Evans, chairman of the council's Committee on Finance and Revenue, and his staff put this new provision into the budget, which the committee approved on Tuesday. Robert White (at-large) praised the move, saying:

I was excited to see the investments that were made to further innovate our tax policy here in the District. You [Evans] listened to residents that came to budget hearings and incorporated their feedback in a meaningful way that is in the best interests of our city. For instance, you heard public opinion and concern about the 4.75% tax on all ride share trips like Uber, Lyft, and Via which is needed to fund our metro system and adopted a plan to tax pooled and single rides differently, so that those who opt to take a pooled ride will see no change in their tax rate.

The Bowser administration also said “we are open to” this idea. Kudos to Councilmember Evans and his committee for supporting this change in the budget. Hopefully Chairman Phil Mendelson will leave this provision in the full budget, which will get its first vote May 15

Do these services take riders from transit?

Elissa Silverman (at-large), another member of the committee, disagreed with this change. She said,

I am concerned that exempting the pool options for the higher taxes will cause more harm than good. I understand the ride hailing supporters (who are here in this room) say we should be encouraging pooled rides because they help reduce the number of cars on the road by putting more people in one car. ...

[But] I'm concerned the pooled rides are going to actively hurt our public transportation systems. ... Metro has said that services like Uber and Lyft are likely taking away riders, and the pooled rides are taking the most away from Metro because they are the most transit-like option.

Studies have supported the idea that ride-hailing may be pulling riders away from transit. According to Schaller's summary, they estimate that 25-57% of people using ride-hailing would have biked, walked, or taken transit. And transit ridership, especially bus ridership, has been declining nationwide with only a few exceptions at the same time ride-hailing has grown.

Growth in Taxi/TNC ridership versus bus ridership. Data from estimates based on US Census data on taxi industry revenues and number of drivers and published data on TNC trip volumes and growth rates. Image by Bruce Schaller.

Silverman's argument is that the pooled rides in particular are competing with transit more than the private rides, and therefore we should not do anything to encourage using pooled rides. I'm not sure that's necessarily true; It's more transit-like, but private riding is more differentiated, such as on convenience. Personal cars compete with transit as well, and lower gas prices have also been a factor in transit's ridership decline.

We unfortunately don't really have the data to answer this question yet, and hopefully can get it in order to more empirically answer this question.

But if our goal is to more efficiently use the road network, move people at low cost, protect the environment, and enable a walkable urban form,

Transit is superior to

Pooled rides, which are superior to

Private ride hails, which are superior to

Private car travel.

Biking is superior to all of those, when it's a viable option, and walking is even more superior when possible.

Pooling might take people from transit, walking, and biking, but so do private ride hails and so do personal cars. At least a policy which favors the #2 best motorized mode over a worse one is a good step in the right direction. In the bigger picture, we need a policy that discourages both #4 and #3 in favor of #2 and especially #1. That's what the New York letter was suggesting.

As that letter also notes, in the future, we'll have autonomous vehicles, and then there will be a #5: privately-owned AVs driving around empty while their owners run errands. Pitting #1 against #2 pales in comparison to this challenge, and a differential pricing starts to enshrine the basic principle, sharing > single-passenger > empty vehicle into law.

And at some point, pooled rides can be a form of transit. We have “micro-transit,” shared vans that transport groups of people. In developing countries, private jitneys often basically are the transit system. In an autonomous world, there isn't really as much difference between a car, a taxi, and a small bus. Private companies could run bus-sized vehicles and so could transit agencies. The lines all blur, but the key overarching public policy principle is that more people in a vehicle should be encouraged over fewer. What's good about the transit bus isn't that it's public, necessarily, but that it can carry a lot of people.

Future studies might shed some empirical light on these questions. Meanwhile, I support enacting this provision in the budget and making DC a national leader on this issue.

Because of ride-hailing companies' unique model, some experts say congestion pricing won't help traffic — but a different tax will. Some MIT scientists think they can use blockchain and other technology to zone cities more optimally. Lots of companies don't want Google to win the self-driving car maps race.

Taxing ride-hailing before congestion: Congestion has always been a part of big thriving cities, but with the advent of ride hailing services such as Uber and Lyft, it seems to have gotten worse. Felix Salmon argues that the only way to solve the problem is not through congestion pricing, an often-suggested economic solution, but rather by taxing ride hailing companies for the amount of space they take up on the roads. (Wired)

Zoning with algorithms: Zoning codes have been organizing cities for almost a century, and yet most cities in the United States are having problems with affordable housing and equitable development. Research scientists at MIT's Media Lab believe they can use blockchain, machine learning, and a system of “tokens” to optimize community and environmental benefits. I'm not sure how much they know about zoning, but this seems like an uphill climb to me. (Tech Crunch)

The war for the self-driving map: Google has long been the leader in mapping due to their early innovations, but both new and existing players don't want them to have the upper hand this time around. These companies are pouring money into a massive, data-intensive project to create with maps for self-driving vehicles — maps that they might not know works until a decade into the future. (Bloomberg)

Charlotte shakeup: Marcus Jones, Charlotte's new City Manager, is making changes to the city's upper management by moving around long-time city employees and leaning on old colleagues from his previous job in Norfolk, Virginia. Most of council seems happy with his performance (even giving him a 6 percent raise), but some longtime council members aren't excited about the changes. (Charlotte Observer)

Palo Alto ditches transit tunnel plans: After years of debate and study, Palo Alto officials are ready to throw in the towel on building a tunnel through the city that would support high speed rail and Caltrain lines. The price tag is estimated to be over $2 billion, and engineering challenges (including digging beneath a creek) make the tunnel infeasible. (Palo Alto Online)

Quote of the Day

“Small- and medium-size apartment complexes account for a quarter of existing units built in the 1970s and 1980s, according to the report. Since 1990, though, the category has accounted for just 15 percent of new housing stock.”

The most stylish streets in the country are those that best reflect the soul of their city. When these three Boston transit wonks talk, the city listens (and makes laws). Ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft are cutting into people's use of alternative transportation. Check out what's happening around the nation and the world in transportation, land use, and other related areas.

The United States' most stylish streets: What do you think of when you think of a street with style? Thrillist put together a list of what they believe are the most stylish streets in America that reflect the ethos and impressions of a place the most. Many of them are historic main streets or commercial drags, but it's a wonder to me that there's no mention at all that they are mostly illegal to build in cities today. (Thrillist)

The shadow transit agency: An advocacy group in Boston called Transit Matters is having an outsized influence on local policy. By digging into the data and doing analysis in their free time, they've been able to help (and in some instances push) the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to make better decisions. This interview with three of the organization's leaders details how they became interested in mobility matters and what they've already done to change policy and process for the better. (CommonWealth)

More trips, less alternative transportation: A new survey study by Dr. Regina Clewlow at UC Davis reports that ride hailing services such as Uber and Lyft are inducing more trips in cities and replacing trips that would have been made by walking, biking, or transit. Findings suggest that even as auto ownership declines, vehicles miles traveled will increase, creating congestion and other possible externalities. The study surveyed 4,000 residents between 2014 and 2015 and focused on seven major cities with ride hailing services. (Curbed)

Migration patterns aren't what you may think: There's a great myth being told about California migration. Liberal policies, over taxation, housing costs are the narrative, but the discussion seems to always leave out a few key points. First is that Californians are leaving the state at the second lowest rate in the country behind Texas. Second is that so very people do move to California compared to other states. And finally, international migration is huge, but often left out of the discussion. (California Rising on Medium)

What keeps us separated and segregated: In this wide-ranging interview, MacArthur Genius Grant winner and journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones discusses how people in cities are still segregating by income, race, and status–and that its not just a historical policy legacy. Her main focus on school segregation brings to light how at a very young age, many children are disenfranchised before they even have a chance to dream. (CityLab)

Quote of the Week

“Singapore’s 'brain' is attempting to modify human behavior–for example, one system rewards drivers for using recommended mapped routes, and punishes those who do not.”

Rohit Talwar, Steve Wells and Alexandra Whittington from Fast Future describing in part how future cities will tell you what to do. (City Metric)

Top image: The Orpheum Theater is located on South Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee, which Thrillist billed as one of the country's most stylish streets. Image by Thomas Hawk licensed under Creative Commons.

The talk, hosted by Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Energy Resources and Environment Program (ERE) Global Leaders Forum, brought together a variety of experts to discuss where “smart cities” are headed.

Here are a few of the key takeaways:

The future is (personal) car-less

Some experts think at some point in the not-so-distant future, personal vehicles will be a relic of the past. Doug Kaufman, a serial entrepreneur and CEO of transportation tech company TransLoc, thinks they will be replaced by something called “microtransit.”

You might not know the term, but it’s quite possible you’ve used something that falls into this category. According to CityLab, microtransit is “more micro than a fixed-route 40-foot bus or a metro rail system; more transit than, well, non-transit.”

Real-world examples of mictrotransit include:

Commuter buses, including Bridj in Boston and Washington, and Leap Transit and Chariot in San Francisco

Dynamic “vanpools”, such as Via in DC and New York

Carpool start-ups, like Carma

Cab-share options, like UberPool and LyftLine

Company and housing shuttles, including Google bus

All of these services provide an efficient and cost-effective system that helps people get from point A to point B. Kaufman says he currently owns a car and drives to work every day because it only takes 15 minutes, versus a 90-minute commute if he relied on public transportation. However, these microtransit services could slash this lengthy commute time, making car ownership redundant and not worth the expense.

Aside from the obvious financial and ecological burdens of owning a car, some experts argued we don’t use our cars all that often anyway.

City Planner Harriet Tregoning pointed out that most of us only use our cars five percent of the time and remain parked during the other 95 percent. City-dwellers spend a lot of time on the simple act of trying to find parking, which can be a big waste of time and money as well as source of frustration. As microtransit becomes a viable option for more people, she thinks they will choose that over owning a personal vehicle.

Not all cities are created equal in terms of transportation

So why do people still own cars in urban areas? The easy answer is the public transportation in suburbs and medium- to smaller- sized cities are not yet at a place where they can function as reliable modes of mobility.

Some millennials and young professionals flock to large American cities like New York, Chicago, and yes, DC for their transportation systems.

However, Peter Hirshberg, author of Maker City and founder of an advocacy firm by the same name, claims some people move to certain cities more because of density than transit. In other words, city transplants “want to be close to people, ideas, money, opportunities, and ultimately success.”

The harsh reality, however, is that not everyone has the luxury to choose where they want to live. As a city’s population and density increases, so does the number of people being pushed out of their neighborhoods and into the suburbs.

In many cases these same people can’t afford a car and are forced to rely on the subpar transportation systems that exist in underfunded areas, resulting in much longer commutes. Most of the experts weren't optimistic about getting help to address these issues from the federal government in the near future.

“The 2016 election has pointed out that cities are on their own,” Tregoning said. “Now more than ever, there is a federal disinvestment in places. Cities need to rely on each other for innovation.”

Where do we go in the meantime?

How this urban reciprocity would work is up for discussion. However, if American cities were to communicate their pain points and brainstorm potential solutions together, that would be a good start.

GGWash readers: How do you think cities should adapt to microtransit?

Top image: Cab-share options like LyftLine are a type of microtransit, which some experts think will only continue to grow more popular in urban areas. Image by Kārlis Dambrāns licensed under Creative Commons.

In early June, a motorist on 18th Street in Adams Morgan struck three people. The incident rekindled an old discussion about how to make a neighborhood known for its busy nightlife safer for everyone who visits, works, lives, or passes through there. One solution might be closing the street to cars.

If you’ve ever been out in Adams Morgan on a Friday or Saturday night, you know what I’m talking about. 18th Street is full of bars and restaurants, the people who patronize them, and the buses, Ubers, taxis, and personal vehicles that transport them. In short: it’s congested.

“It’s pretty clear that people recognize there is a problem but people don’t know what the solution is or the possibilities are for making it better,” says Ted Guthrie, chairman of the Adams Morgan Advisory Neighborhood Commission.

The ANC’s public safety and transportation committees have been discussing ways to improve safety on 18th Street during peak hours. At the transportation committee’s June meeting, two ideas emerged as the strongest contenders: designating specific areas where ride-hailing services can pick up passengers, and closing the street to some types of motor vehicles, or all of them.

“We are still in the search for ideas,” said Wilson Reynolds, an ANC commissioner and chairman of its Planning, Zoning, and Transportation Committee. “We could improve what is clearly a serious situation, not just at night and weekends.”

Designated spots for Uber and Lyft pick-ups could ease congestion

A 2012 streetscape revitalization project made a number of beneficial changes, such as widening sidewalks, and creating a median that delivery trucks use as unloading zones during the day and police and traffic control officers stand in at night. That came at the cost of reducing the travel lanes to one in each direction.

With one lane each way, and lots of people coming and going, it’s easy to see how traffic on 18th Street can get backed up and present safety hazards to motorists and pedestrians. Witnesses said the driver of the truck that struck three people swerved to get around a bus that was stuck behind an Uber driver who was dropping off passengers. The police officers reportedly were trying to keep traffic moving.

Designating pick-up points for Uber, Lyft, and other ride-hailing services has been done in DC and other areas. It happened during the 2017 presidential inauguration, when the apps connected drivers and riders in areas outside the security perimeter around the National Mall and Pennsylvania Avenue parade route. There are also pick-up points around Nationals Park to help direct traffic on game days.

“In cases where there are street closures and peak traffic, we often provide in-app passenger messaging and driver communications to help ensure passengers and drivers can connect,” says Steve Taylor, Lyft's DC general manager. “In some cases, we set up designated pick-up and drop off locations around an area with street closures, which allow passengers and drivers to meet at a designated point.”

Uber didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Closing the street to all motor vehicle traffic would be a tough sell

Another suggestion is to close 18th Street entirely to all motor vehicle traffic during peak hours. Businesses along either side of the street and the Metropolitan Police Department probably wouldn’t like that approach, according to Kristen Barden, executive director for the Adams Morgan Partnership Business Improvement District.

“That needs to be a longer process,” she says. “I don’t think MPD is in favor of that. They want taxis and Ubers to come in and take people away at the end of the night.”

The way things are right now, MPD, working in partnership with District Department of Transportation officers, sometimes blocks off southbound traffic between Columbia and Belmont roads. It doesn’t happen every weekend, Barden says. And if it does occur, they don’t do it until businesses’ closing time approaches.

Margarita Mikhaylova, an MPD spokeswoman, says blocking the southbound lane tends to keep people on the east side, which is where “the vast majority” of bars and restaurants are located. Think of neighborhood staples like Madam’s Organ, Amsterdam Falafelshop, and the Diner.

“Busses and cabs are not restricted but all other southbound traffic is,” Mikhaylova says. “This allows emergency equipment to get in rapidly. Experience shows us that ambulances and additional officers are often needed at that time.”

Any changes would have to go through DDOT, which didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Closing the street to all motor vehicle traffic and establishing a pedestrian mall could make it take longer for an ambulance to reach someone who needs medical help. If the street is full of people, they would have to move (or be told to move) out of the way. And if the street is blocked off with physical barriers, someone would have to lower them.

Other cities have figured out pedestrian zones. Can DC?

Other cities have successfully carried out plans for closing streets to motor vehicles. Barcelona has a system of “superblocks,” as Stephen Hudson explained earlier this year. A superblock is a cluster of blocks in which through traffic is prohibited and the speed limit is only 10 km/h (6 mph).

This summer, Seattle is holding its “Pike People Street” program. It’s a series of ten Saturday evenings when certain blocks in the Pike/Pine area are open only to pedestrians from 6 pm to 3 am.

The city tested the concept in pilot programs it conducted in 2015 and 2016. The most important lesson it learned was that road closures work best when there’s a consistent schedule. That makes it easier for pedestrians and motorists to plan ahead. Another conclusion was that bringing in furnishings and programming, like seating and small-scale performances, can keep a street full of pedestrians from feeling too empty.

If DC does anything to address safety on 18th Street, it will take a while. The ANC commissioners and business leaders I spoke with all agreed that it would take support from the ANC, the police, and DDOT. And they’d want to work with Uber and Lyft, WMATA, and other groups and agencies that play a role. It’s hard to make a change in the status quo, so just think how hard it would be to make a change as big closing a busy street.

“I would think it would take someone higher than an ANC level to get that rammed through,” Guthrie, the ANC chair, says.

UPDATE: This post was edited to reflect the correct name and title of Steve Taylor, who was quoted above.

Our region is one of the easiest to get around without a car. I do it every day thanks in large part to a new generation of smart phone apps that take the stress and uncertainty out of plotting a route, reading schedules, and connecting to other services. I’ve become something of an evangelist for two in particular – CityMapper and Transit.

The elevator pitch for both is that they’re all-in-one: meaning you can easily see every local and regional transit option plus complementary services like Capital Bikeshare, Car2Go, and even Uber and Lyft. Both apps show real-time arrivals, departures, and availability. All you do is tap which mode of transportation you want and you get a step by step plan for your trip.

This post isn’t meant to be an endorsement of any specific app – search around and find what works for you. And Google Maps certainly has its uses, like turn-by-turn directions and traffic updates.

But here’s a quick breakdown of why apps like CityMapper and Transit make for smooth transportation experiences:

Real-time tracking: Even the occasional transit rider knows that posted schedules are often unreliable and sometimes completely useless. CityMapper and Transit use GPS tracking and other tools to make sure arrivals and departures are as accurate as possible – so you know exactly when to leave the house to catch the bus. GPS predictions aren’t always 100% reliable either, but they’re way better than relying on the posted schedule like Google Maps still does.

Combine services and modes: The best way from A to B isn’t always a straight line. Maybe you need to combine bus and rail, or use bikeshare for that last-mile connection. Maybe Metro is woefully delayed and you want to check out regional buses or commuter rail. Whatever the trip, these apps combine every possible option and provide you a menu of choices. Again, you can even see real-time Uber, Lyft, and Car2Go availability and estimated pricing if transit isn’t cutting it.

Bike better: One of my favorite features is that these apps automatically incorporate Capital Bikeshare, including real-time availability of bikes and docks. Planning a trip on your own bike is an option, too. CityMapper even sorts bike routes by “Quiet,” “Regular,” and “Fast” so you can adjust for your comfort level.

See what’s nearby: If you just want to see what buses and trains are coming or how many bikes are at the nearest dock, you can quickly pull up your surroundings and take a look. The Transit app is particularly good for this.

Bonus features: You can add widgets to your home screen, set your commute for automatic morning and evening updates, track your calories burned and carbon saved, and more. Personally, I love CityMapper’s buttons that simply say “Get Me Home” and “Get Me to Work” so my morning and evening commute options are pre-loaded for me.

Transit in action.

Google Maps is the go-to, but it’s not the best

Despite these great apps, I often see transit-savvy commenters on places like GGWash and the DC subreddit recommending Google Maps for residents and visitors alike. But for many if not most trips, there are simply better options.

I don’t mean to pick on Google – the company literally invented the system (GTFS, now called the General Transit Feed Specification, but guess what “G” stood for initially) that led the way in real-time transit trip planning.

It’s just that newer apps have more and better tools available for car-free trips: features like real-time bus and train tracking, multimodal and multi-operator trip planning, and seamless integration of complementary services like bikeshare.

To illustrate, here’s a comparison using a real-world scenario

Today, I’m meeting friends after work for a happy hour in NoMa. My office is in Navy Yard. My default assumption is to take Metro from Navy Yard to Chinatown and transfer to the Red Line, but I decide to check my phone to see if another option is better. (Maybe this exact situation doesn’t apply to you, but I’m sure you can think of times when you want to consider a bunch of options quickly.)

Scenario 1: I open up Google Maps to see my options. After tapping on the transit icon, I see that indeed, Green Line to Red Line is the recommended option. So I pull up Metro Hero to check the next train departure – can I stop for coffee first, or should I hurry? Uh oh – I see that due to a track problem at Mt. Vernon Square, “expect residual delays.” Back to Google to check the bus options. I see that I could walk over to 8th Street to catch the 90/92, but there’s no indication of when the next one will arrive.

You get the idea – I could pull up a separate Capital Bikeshare app to check availability there, then go back to Google Maps to plan my route, but I think you’ll find that Scenario 2 makes things easier.

Scenario 2: I open CityMapper and enter my destination. I see a screen with Metrorail, Metrobus, Capital Bikeshare, and more, plus a map where I can quickly tap on different stops or stations to see what’s coming. The residual delays on the Green/Yellow lines are noted prominently. Since it’s a nice day and there’s plenty of availability, I decide to grab a bikeshare, and the app has turn-by-turn directions queued up for me. Much better!

CityMapper in action. Image by the author.

In the end, despite some recent improvements, companies like Google and Apple make the default assumption that you’re driving yourself, and their transit planning is usually based on schedules rather than GPS. If your trip is within the DC/Baltimore region, chances are that something like CityMapper or Transit is better suited. (They work in other places too, once you get there – just don’t rely on them for long inter city trips.)

In some ways, we’re already there, but there’s still a ways to go. Moving forward, unified mobile fare payment would be a major step to help knit the region even closer together and make paying for trips – even across services and boundaries – as simple as it currently is to plan them.

In the meantime, the information we have at our fingertips makes going car-free or car-lite much less of a hassle than it used to be. When you know exactly where and when you need to show up, riding transit fits right in our increasingly on-demand world.

Driverless cars, drones, and other high-tech changes to urban transportation are on the way. But what will they do to our region? New tech offers tremendous opportunities to make travel safer, cleaner, and more efficient, but could also cause big problems for cities and public space.

“Self-driving vehicles will improve our cities, if they don’t ruin them,” ZipCar founder Robin Chase wrote last summer. Chase now leads Osmosys, a movement focused on helping cities and other jurisdictions plan wisely for autonomous vehicles.

Chase foresees either a Heaven or Hell scenario. To her, Hell would be legions of individually-owned driverless vehicles loosed upon streets and highways, randomly ferrying individual occupants near and far. Heaven would follow what Chase calls the “FAVES” principle: Fleets of Autonomous Vehicles that are Electric and Shared.

At an April roundtable hosted by the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, local experts seemed to agree.

Stop widening highways, say Uber & car2go

Ride-hailing services like Lyft and Uber were a hot topic at the roundtable.

According to a report by Morgan Stanley, vehicles owned by ride-hailing services now provide 4% of global miles traveled, but that could zoom to 25% by 2030 with driverless vehicles.

“The self-driving piece can fast-forward into that future,” says Nick Zabriskie, who represented Uber at the discussion.

That will change how we provide infrastructure, says Zabriskie. With so many shared rides, significantly fewer vehicles will be on the road. Zabriskie questions the need to spend billions on bigger highways. “We have enough infrastructure,” he claims.

No one at the event, however, suggested ride-hailing could replace the need for mass transit. That the possibility would even come up “just makes me sick,” says Aaron Landry, general manager of car2go DC, a car-borrowing service that operates 600 vehicles in the Washington area. “Ultimately, mass transit is the backbone to transportation, despite all options.”

Roundtable participants. From left: Jon Schermann of MWCOG, Nick Zabriskie of Uber, and Hari Sripathi of VDOT. Image by the author.

As airborne drone delivery hovers in the near future, robot coolers-on-wheels are already scooting food across the sidewalks of Georgetown, in direct conflict with pedestrians, strollers, wheelchairs, and cyclists. To manage these new frontiers, Jon Schermann from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments says that each jurisdiction will need to “navigate the trade-offs and create solutions that are acceptable to their residents and businesses.”

Even today, before driverless delivery has reached the mainstream, there's already serious “competition for curbside space,” among trucks, buses, taxis, and other ride-hailing services, says Schermann. For that reason, careful planning is needed now, to rethink how curb space is allocated. Right now, shop owners don't even think about the shared impact, he claimed. “That’s someone else’s trouble with the trucks.”

Interestingly, Uber’s Zabriskie does not anticipate that human drivers will be completely eliminated with the arrival of driverless delivery. “There would be a driver in a self-driving truck. The driver would take over to do “last-mile tasks” such as judging precisely where goods need to go.

VDOT data sharing makes roads more efficient

The Virginia Department of Transportation isn't sitting idly by, waiting for technology changes to happen. The agency is trying to plan for changing transportation, and is using current tech to make roads more efficient.

Through its “integrated corridor management” process, VDOT gathers and makes public data from a variety of sources, including Uber, transit, parking availability, and on-road conditions. The goal, according to VDOT's Hari Sripathi, is for consumers to make informed travel decisions. With a full picture of current conditions for all modes, he says, “people will make the choice that’s best for them.” Otherwise, “they’ll just drive.”

VDOT is already sending information from its 1,300 traffic signals to a data portal where it can be used by others to develop applications. The agency is also making work zone information available, which will ultimately assist connected and self-driving vehicles since that data is not on GPS.

Learn more on Wednesday, May 3

Another opportunity to explore these issues comes Wednesday, May 3, when Fairfax County hosts a vehicle display and afternoon symposium titled “Test Track for the Future of Autonomous Vehicles,” at 12000 Government Center Parkway. The event is free and open to the public.

As new technology continues to emerge, hopefully our region will take a cool-headed, proactive approach so we can solve current problems rather than exacerbate them.

Correction: The original version of this post used a quote from Jon Schermann that was intended only for aerial package delivery drones rather than on-the-ground delivery robots or autonomous vehicles. His quote has been updated to be more accurate.

Union Station won a 2016 Lyftie Award for being the top transit destination in America. Founding Farmers was the most popular restaurant destination in DC, and Don Tito in Arlington was the bar of choice. (Lyft)

To improve public health, planners in Prince George's want to reshape the county's built environment so that walking and biking are more viable choices for residents. Other areas in our region and around the country are shifting focus to plan for public health too. (Post)

A planned building in Old Town Alexandria two blocks from the King Street Metro Station is creating a fuss due to its modern design. Residents fear it will distract and detract from the Old Town charm. (WBJ)

DC water officials are planning on revisiting how to best handle large pollution spills. The city estimates that if a large spill occurred and couldn't be avoided, DC would only have one to two days of drinking water. (WTOP)

More than 50 cars were vandalized Wednesday morning at the Greenbelt Metro Station parking lot. Police have identified three persons of interest who they believe broke into the cars at around 4 am. (Post)

An Uber driver in DC drove off with a two-year-old boy in the backseat before his mother could get in the car. They were reunited after the woman found a DC police officer to chase the car down. Uber suspended the driver pending an investigation. (Post)

Amsterdam used a “Bike Mayor” to help bridge the gap between city policymakers and the bike-using public, and so far, the program has been a success. Now she's heading to New York to expand the program. (CityLab)

A photographer captured commutes in Boston, Chicago, and New York City over a few months in 2016. The black and white images are strikingly beautiful and informative about how we travel to and from work (Atlantic)

Rent is DC is the sixth the highest in the nation, but rents for one-bedroom apartments are down 3.2 percent overall from last year. Rents are still rising in some neighborhoods. Kingman Park, Waterfront, and U Street/Cardoza had the fastest growing rents. (Curbed)

Metro can again receive federal grant money upfront. After finding major problems with how Metro handled grant money three years ago, the Federal Transit Administration began requiring Metro to prove work was completed before providing funding. (WTOP)

After two recent fatalities, residents want to make crossing Central Avenue near the Addison Road Metro station safer. The Maryland State Highway Administration says better driver education may help prevent future fatalities. (WJLA)

In Maryland, drivers for ride hailing services like Uber and Lyft must now undergo more stringent annual background checks. The Public Service Commission opted not to include fingerprinting as part of the background checks after Uber threatened to leave the state. (Post)

Maryland offers the least generous childcare subsidies among all states and must do more, advocates say. New federal laws require states to provide enough in subsidies to cover the cost of pricier childcare programs, rather than just the least expensive. (Post)

To provide assistance to more residents, Virginia is using a new assessment tool to determine which disabled residents need more help. But caregivers and advocates say this has led to decreased funding for families already receiving services. (Post)

Maryland's attorney general has filed a lawsuit against a nursing home operator, accusing it of evicting tenants once their Medicare benefits run dry. The lawsuit says tenants were taken to unlicensed facilities. (WTOP)

Starting Friday, Fairfax City residents may begin voting absentee in a special election to elect a new mayor. The previous mayor, Scott Silverthorne, resigned after his arrest in August for allegedly trying to trade meth for sex. (NBC Washington)

Vincent Gray will make his return to the DC Council as the chairman for the Committee on Health. With 11 total committees, only Robert White and Trayon White will be left without a committee to lead. (DCist)

Barwood Cab Company, Montgomery County's largest cab service, filed for bankruptcy this week, citing increased competition from Uber and Lyft. Montgomery County Council President Roger Berliner says an outdated business model is to blame. (WAMU)

Maryland's Board of Public Works canceled a lease for office space, housing, and retail in midtown Baltimore, despite threats of a $70 million lawsuit from the developer. Governor Hogan has proposed a new stadium in place of the mixed-use project. (Post)

Ward 6B ANC commissioner Denise Krepp has finally secured data on conviction rates in DC, after requesting the data from the Department of Justice for over a year, and even filing a lawsuit in May. Krepp says the data is a starting point to address the problem of violent crime. (DCist)

On Tuesday, an overnight vigil remembered the homeless men and women of DC who died this past year while living on the streets. Of the 35 who passed, 17 were in possession of housing vouchers, but had not been able to secure housing. (Post)

Metro spent nearly $1 million on a new escalator outside the Huntington Metro Station, but it didn't pass county safety inspections because Virginia law requires a canopy to keep people from slipping when it rains or snows. (Covering the Corridor)

Days after premiering its self-driving car program in San Francisco, Uber has temporarily stopped operations. The ride-hailing company failed to secure the proper DMV permits and there were several reports of cars running afoul of driving laws. (SFist)

Montgomery County’s Council is divided 5-4 in favor of a bill to increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2020. Those still in opposition want more time to study the potential impact to the economy before moving forward. (Bethesda Magazine)

Money is the best medicine

On Wednesday, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan proposed a minimum of 40 hours of paid sick leave per year for businesses with 50 or more employees, with tax incentives for smaller businesses that take part. (WTOP)

Uber vs. Maryland

Uber is threatening to stop service in Maryland if the state opts to perform fingerprint-based background checks on its drivers. The state’s Public Service Commission will decide on the new screening rules this month. (Diamondback)

Metro’s new money man

Metro has hired former Virginia congressman Tom Davis to help secure federal funding. Davis played a key role in pushing through the 10-year Congressional deal (expiring in 2019) that gives Metro $150 million per year for capital expenses. (Post)

DC under Obama

During President Obama’s tenure, DC’s racial makeup shifted away from a black majority, housing prices and income continued to rise, and violent crime dropped by over 10%. (Washingtonian)

And…

The National Harbor MGM opens today amid great fanfare, but some are concerned business may not hold up long-term. (Post) ... Public transportation is free and car-use is restricted in Paris for the second day in a row due to a haze of pollution. (The Guardian) ... Boston may subsidize late-night rides on Lyft. (Boston Globe)